At 06:37 17.11.03 +0000, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
>I wrote:
> > >If you are using MSVC, I guess the real question is, is there any
> > >chance that we will be able to claim supporting a MSVC build "out of
> > >the box" with a straight face? 
>Hans Breuer writes:
> > Probably not, at least not until the issues outlined in
> >
>The first issue there is about building fontconfig. Why assume
>somebody building *GIMP* with MSVC would want to build *everything* it
>depends on, too?
Where did I do this assumption ? Though on the other hand I think
it'll help, cause usually The Gimp's usage of the Gimp Toolkit and
Pango does trigger some bugs in the toolkit, which were not noticed
until than or are long time known but simply not fixed.

For debugging purpose with msvc it helps a lot to build a debug 
enabled version of gtk+, pango and glib - i.e. :

        nmake -f makefile.msc DEBUG=1

thus linking with msvcrtd.dll. But if one does not want to use 
the M$ debugger, sure it's fine to not build dependencies. 

Though in that case why not (simply) use the mingw build ?

> > Though I still have plans to extend Pango to allow 
> > 'render to bitmap' and 'get glyph outlines' at least with two 
> > backends (win32 and FT2), there seems to be noone else interested.
>Well, at least for me the issue is that I haven't investigated deeply
>enough of this to understand your point...
What issue : Wanting a common api for almost basic font stuff
doable with different backends, to get backend independent 
application source ? 
Wanting only one font configuration, or even font backend per 
application ? 
Or trying to avoid the additional FT2/fontconfig dependency 
at all ?

> > >almost unmaintained, and requires manual intervention on the builder's
> > >system. Is manual editing needed for the makefile.msc files? 
> > Only if there are files added or removed, so usually not that much
> > when getting stable again ...
>But surely the current stuff in module.defs, for instance, which
>requires you to have the various dependency *sources* unpacked as
>siblings to your GIMP source directory, is not a good idea? 
It depends. AFAIK one can as well install only your 'developer
packages' at the configured places with some small adaptions
in modules.defs. But I never tested it cause I'm building
everything from source - usually from cvs ...

>The build/win32 stuff should be changed to use pkg-config and *installed*
>developer packages of glib, gtk etc.
Why not throw in all the auto* tools to make the configure step take the
same time as the compile step ? But serious: as everyone can easily see 
we have very different approaches how building The Gimp should work.
I'd say to the benefit of giving choices. But it probably does not 
matter much cause we both appear to do it almost on our own.

If there is somebody else interested in compiling The Gimp under
windoze please throw in your opinion. Or even better some
concrete problems which stopped you from providing patches ;-).

-------- Hans "at" Breuer "dot" Org -----------
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to 
get along without it.                -- Dilbert
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to